The Kickstarter Page for Shadowrun Returns celebrates the $1,000,000 in pledges Harebrained Schemes' upcoming Shadowrun revival has attracted. This results in this trailer explaining how these funds will be used to add more elements to the game, and outlining their next goal, saying if they reach the $1.5 million mark they will construct a "backer's only exclusive mission" as a "little reward." The clip concludes saying they have "some pretty twisted ideas" of what to do if they receive even more funding (as if "more elements" wasn't twisted enough). Interestingly, some of the comments express unhappiness at the prospect of exclusive content for backers.

Exclusive mission is now only exclusive for a period of time, then everyone will get it. Good compromise, even if that's what tends to happen with retail exclusive DLC anyway (usually with the GOTY copy).

NKD wrote on Apr 16, 2012, 22:27:I don't think people realize the costs in printing thousands of t-shirts or books. The exclusive in-game stuff is actually much cheaper to produce, leaving more money for the actual game.

As long as the in-game exclusives are not overly significant, I don't have a problem with it. I consider it the cost of getting the games I want. Expensive to produce out-of-game perks are not going to support this business model by themselves.

There's lots of different ways to do the backer rewards... as we've seen with all the major gaming Kickstarters so far. Exclusive DLC missions shouldn't be one of them.

I don't really have a problem with backer-exclusive DLC. There's a pretty big difference between that and retailer-exclusive pre-order DLC. For one, backers are investing in a game based on faith alone. Without this faith, the game would not be made. It's much safer to wait until a game is released and then read reviews or wait for a sale so backers are taking a bigger risk than post-release buyers. Secondly, retailer-exclusive DLC has nothing to do with gamers and everything to do with publishers trying to get maximum shelf space for their games. Retailer-exclusive DLC screws consumers in favor of retailers. Backer-exclusive DLC rewards consumers who took a risk and ensured that the game would get made.

Aside from ensuring that the game gets made, backer funding helps make the game better by allowing it to expand and/or polish its content. This doesn't happen when you pre-order a regular game. Pre-order DLC is done to make a game profitable as quickly as possible and ensure more shelf space. Publishers like to recoup their costs as quickly as possible and they want to maximize sales within a week. The money that goes into pre-orders doesn't go back into development. It goes into the pockets of the publishers. Conversely, supporting a Kickstarter helps make its games better.

My concern here isn't really about the money, funding, or investment risk. I don't dislike exclusive DLC because it benefits retailers, I dislike it because it's exclusive... It results in a different game experience depending on how you obtained it. Just take any one of your favorite games and remove one of the missions... that mission was exclusive and you didn't get it. I'm sure this backer reward will probably be minor, it's just a matter of principle for me though.

And no... I'm not going to cancel my investment over this, I just don't agree with it and rather they didn't.

NKD wrote on Apr 16, 2012, 22:27:I don't think people realize the costs in printing thousands of t-shirts or books. The exclusive in-game stuff is actually much cheaper to produce, leaving more money for the actual game.

As long as the in-game exclusives are not overly significant, I don't have a problem with it. I consider it the cost of getting the games I want. Expensive to produce out-of-game perks are not going to support this business model by themselves.

There's lots of different ways to do the backer rewards... as we've seen with all the major gaming Kickstarters so far. Exclusive DLC missions shouldn't be one of them.

What about an exclusive perk, like Wasteland's KS offered, and no one batted an eye at? :)

I guess I'm making the distinction at missions... game content beyond an aesthetic item or something minor. But hey, for all we know it could be a pretty minor mission.

"With the game purchase you get zones 1-8 but if you pre-order from GameStop you will also get zone 6B!"

"With the game purchase you get zones 1-8 but if you're a backer you will also get zone 6B!"

I know I'm making a mountain of a molehill but as I've said before I'm not going to change my position on exclusive DLC just because it happens to benefit me this time.

NKD wrote on Apr 16, 2012, 22:27:I don't think people realize the costs in printing thousands of t-shirts or books. The exclusive in-game stuff is actually much cheaper to produce, leaving more money for the actual game.

As long as the in-game exclusives are not overly significant, I don't have a problem with it. I consider it the cost of getting the games I want. Expensive to produce out-of-game perks are not going to support this business model by themselves.

There's lots of different ways to do the backer rewards... as we've seen with all the major gaming Kickstarters so far. Exclusive DLC missions shouldn't be one of them.

What about an exclusive perk, like Wasteland's KS offered, and no one batted an eye at?

NKD wrote on Apr 16, 2012, 22:27:I don't think people realize the costs in printing thousands of t-shirts or books. The exclusive in-game stuff is actually much cheaper to produce, leaving more money for the actual game.

As long as the in-game exclusives are not overly significant, I don't have a problem with it. I consider it the cost of getting the games I want. Expensive to produce out-of-game perks are not going to support this business model by themselves.

There's lots of different ways to do the backer rewards... as we've seen with all the major gaming Kickstarters so far. Exclusive DLC missions shouldn't be one of them.

I don't really have a problem with backer-exclusive DLC. There's a pretty big difference between that and retailer-exclusive pre-order DLC. For one, backers are investing in a game based on faith alone. Without this faith, the game would not be made. It's much safer to wait until a game is released and then read reviews or wait for a sale so backers are taking a bigger risk than post-release buyers. Secondly, retailer-exclusive DLC has nothing to do with gamers and everything to do with publishers trying to get maximum shelf space for their games. Retailer-exclusive DLC screws consumers in favor of retailers. Backer-exclusive DLC rewards consumers who took a risk and ensured that the game would get made.

Aside from ensuring that the game gets made, backer funding helps make the game better by allowing it to expand and/or polish its content. This doesn't happen when you pre-order a regular game. Pre-order DLC is done to make a game profitable as quickly as possible and ensure more shelf space. Publishers like to recoup their costs as quickly as possible and they want to maximize sales within a week. The money that goes into pre-orders doesn't go back into development. It goes into the pockets of the publishers. Conversely, supporting a Kickstarter helps make its games better.

NKD wrote on Apr 16, 2012, 22:27:I don't think people realize the costs in printing thousands of t-shirts or books. The exclusive in-game stuff is actually much cheaper to produce, leaving more money for the actual game.

As long as the in-game exclusives are not overly significant, I don't have a problem with it. I consider it the cost of getting the games I want. Expensive to produce out-of-game perks are not going to support this business model by themselves.

There's lots of different ways to do the backer rewards... as we've seen with all the major gaming Kickstarters so far. Exclusive DLC missions shouldn't be one of them.

I don't think people realize the costs in printing thousands of t-shirts or books. The exclusive in-game stuff is actually much cheaper to produce, leaving more money for the actual game.

As long as the in-game exclusives are not overly significant, I don't have a problem with it. I consider it the cost of getting the games I want. Expensive to produce out-of-game perks are not going to support this business model by themselves.

Sepharo wrote on Apr 16, 2012, 21:14:I'd prefer the backers get early access, swag, whatever... Not a piece of the game nobody else is going to get.

That just seems ass backwards to me. Make more game content for everyone, exclusive, dlc, whatever. Not material items that don't benefit the game at all.

A lot of the "old school" gamers don't like DLC and especially exclusive DLC... I don't see why they should put that dislike on hold because in this case it happens to benefit them. You threw that bit in there about "more game content for everyone", yeah I'd love that.

Teddy wrote on Apr 16, 2012, 19:04:Really. External things like T-shirts, art books, etc, etc are all well and good. Extra "exclusive" quests? No way in hell.

So you are ok with them making material items as bonuses that future purchases of the game will never see, and adds ZERO benefit to the actual game itself. But you are not ok with them actually using the Kickstarter money to make more game content that is backer exclusive and then sold as DLC to others?

You people have some fucked up rationale.

How is that fucked up? Some of us believe that game content shouldn't be put behind exclusive deals or pay walls even if it is a bonus for us as backers.

I'd prefer the backers get early access, swag, whatever... Not a piece of the game nobody else is going to get.

Teddy wrote on Apr 16, 2012, 19:04:Really. External things like T-shirts, art books, etc, etc are all well and good. Extra "exclusive" quests? No way in hell.

So you are ok with them making material items as bonuses that future purchases of the game will never see, and adds ZERO benefit to the actual game itself. But you are not ok with them actually using the Kickstarter money to make more game content that is backer exclusive and then sold as DLC to others?

You people have some fucked up rationale.

We are supposed to be Kickstarting development of GAME CONTENT, not the creation of material marketing items that will just end up being sold for additional profits.

Teddy wrote on Apr 16, 2012, 19:04:If they go through with that, I'll withdraw my money in a heartbeat.

You already Pledged when they had the Backer Exclusive Special Ability at the $30 price point. You may as well back out now.

Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Apr 16, 2012, 00:35:While I agree that exclusive content is not the right incentive in this case, I think your logic here is problematic as well. This bonus mission is not deemed to be part of the game by the designers, as evidenced by the fact that they don't intend to create it as part of the game right now. It's no more part of the game than any other mission created by anyone else using the toolset. It's simply a bonus mission that happens to be created by the developer because the funders kicked in enough extra money for them to do so. Your opinion that anything they do must be part of the game is just that, your opinion. You don't seem to have any real basis for your claim though.

Are you serious? I don't have any basis for my claim, other than the fact that the content we're talking about will be developed by the creators of the game, ready for launch and shipped with the game. THAT IS GAME CONTENT. Using words like "bonus" and "exclusive" doesn't make it any less game content that is not included for a specific subset of the population who will buy this game.

Anything they do that IS PART OF THE GAMEPLAY EXPERIENCE, is part of the game. It's pretty basic. Really. External things like T-shirts, art books, etc, etc are all well and good. Extra "exclusive" quests? No way in hell. Hell, I don't even care if they make it paid DLC and give it to certain backer levels for free. But exclusive stuff that people who weren't backers aren't allowed to have is pathetic. If they go through with that, I'll withdraw my money in a heartbeat.

Creston wrote on Apr 16, 2012, 01:10:I'm not sure why you want the two models to mix so they inevitably become the same publisher-driven shithole again.

I'm not really understanding that myself either. Don't get me wrong, I'm skeptical of the long term potential of the Kickstarter model, but if we start considering Kickstarter to be just a gimmick to get a studio off the ground, it REALLY won't do what we want it to.

Success breeds mediocrity in the games industry.

Companies who make a lot of money invariably use it to grow their company, and make bigger more expensive titles, which in turn need to sell more copies, and so on. Eventually there is so much overhead and bulk in the company that creativity is sacrificed just to keep the lights turned on at the office.

Kickstarter and similar models will depend on whether this can lead to a new breed of small independent studios run by developers and designers, not businessmen; studios content to be small and remain small because of the freedom it affords them.

Just think of the quality of game we could have if all games only had to sell 100,000 copies to be profitable. You could make amazing titles for even the smallest niche audiences and sell them for well under $60.

No, you're not going to get amazing prerendered cutscenes, full voice work, or whatever, but you'll get the gameplay you want with zero compromises. People who see Kickstarter as a way to fund a studio's way to the triple-A market are just pissing away the entire point of Kickstarter.

If you want to increase funding, look at what Wasteland 2 is doing. They just made their 30$ tier extremely tempting by adding in an extra copy of the game, a video documentary, a novella by Avellone and some more stuff.

Don't go down the path of exclusive DLC. That's just bullshit.

Some of the most miserable and unhappy gamers on the planet are at Bluesnews

I prefer to know what I'm buying. With kickstarter, I'll never know, because you are really only buying into an idea. I have no problem with people who are ok with that sort of thing, but that's not me.

While it would be good to have some sort of guarantee that the final product will live up to expectations, there's no real way for that to happen with any type of funding. Like with any game, you just have to faith in it. The difference between funding a Kickstarter project and pre-ordering a game is that your Kickstarter funding results in the game actually being made. Games like Max Payne 3 or Skyrim were going to be made regardless of pre-orders. Games like Wasteland 2 and Shadowrun were not.

When the alternative is that a game never gets made, then I don't see what you could possibly have to complain about. We've waited forever for the traditional game publishing industry to create this game. It hasn't happened. So we fund its creation ourselves. If you don't care about this game, then I can understand you not funding it, but I can't understand what you have against the Kickstarter concept. How else do you get something like this done?

I understand the rationale behind the kickstarter concept. But for me, I find the negatives and positives are pretty balanced. Some people don't mind pre-ordering games. I do. I want to actually see the game before I pay money for it. With kickstarter, there's often no game at all, just concepts in a developer's head. Will it turn into a game? Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe there'll be complications, and they can't make the game the way they intended. Maybe they run out of money, and have to ship an incomplete project. Lots of things can go wrong.

I prefer to know what I'm buying. With kickstarter, I'll never know, because you are really only buying into an idea. I have no problem with people who are ok with that sort of thing, but that's not me.

What's not to like about the Kickstarter concept?

Nobody makes you invest in a game, and there's no downside for you if you don't, aside from perhaps the possibility that it doesn't meet its goal and therefore doesn't get made. Those that are passionate about a game concept or IP or developer will take the risk if they deem the reward to be worth it. If you aren't willing to invest in anything like that, then you may still end up reaping the rewards if enough other people are.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)

eRe4s3r wrote on Apr 15, 2012, 22:59:But I don't know about you guys, but I want UNIQUE and NEW games, and not retreading of old IP's for eternity.

Which you already get with the traditional model. But with the traditional model, we get NO retreading of old IPs whatsoever, except when EA decides to rape yet another franchise like they just did with Syndicate.

I'm not sure why you want the two models to mix so they inevitably become the same publisher-driven shithole again. Weisman and Fargo will make their two games, feed their employees for the 1 or 2 years that it takes them, and after that they'll either get lucky and make a profit, or they've broken even and spent 1 or 2 years doing the thing they love: Making games THEY want to make, for fans who want them to make them that way.

Afterwards they can always go back to make a game for a big publisher, and get told how half their features should work by some marketoid fucktard who's never played a single game in his life.

I just don't see what you're so worried about? These two games will happen, and if you like the old-school games, they will be awesome.

When the alternative is that a game never gets made, then I don't see what you could possibly have to complain about. We've waited forever for the traditional game publishing industry to create this game. It hasn't happened. So we fund its creation ourselves. If you don't care about this game, then I can understand you not funding it, but I can't understand what you have against the Kickstarter concept. How else do you get something like this done?

I understand the rationale behind the kickstarter concept. But for me, I find the negatives and positives are pretty balanced. Some people don't mind pre-ordering games. I do. I want to actually see the game before I pay money for it. With kickstarter, there's often no game at all, just concepts in a developer's head. Will it turn into a game? Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe there'll be complications, and they can't make the game the way they intended. Maybe they run out of money, and have to ship an incomplete project. Lots of things can go wrong.

I prefer to know what I'm buying. With kickstarter, I'll never know, because you are really only buying into an idea. I have no problem with people who are ok with that sort of thing, but that's not me.

Flatline wrote on Apr 15, 2012, 23:45:You're getting the complete game. Think of this game sort of like Neverwinter Nights, where you had a main story, plus you had a robust mission editor to create new content. Now imagine an ad that says "preorder today and get an EXCLUSIVE BONUS MISSION by the creators of the game!"

You're having some problems with logic. If there's an "exclusive bonus mission" that's complete at release and only given to certain people, then people that aren't getting it are ABSOLUTELY not getting the complete game. The complete game would be every bit of the game made in time for release.

While I agree that exclusive content is not the right incentive in this case, I think your logic here is problematic as well. This bonus mission is not deemed to be part of the game by the designers, as evidenced by the fact that they don't intend to create it as part of the game right now. It's no more part of the game than any other mission created by anyone else using the toolset. It's simply a bonus mission that happens to be created by the developer because the funders kicked in enough extra money for them to do so. Your opinion that anything they do must be part of the game is just that, your opinion. You don't seem to have any real basis for your claim though.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)

That's all it is. Anyone bitching about this I'm going to say probably isn't going to buy the thing anyway and will just pirate it.

You can't seriously have claimed that things are going over another posters head, and then posted that tripe. Do you really think that pirates won't be able to get their hands on the "exclusive" content? Of course they will. Anyone planning on pirating the game will get all of the content available. The only ones who won't are the people who intend to buy it once it's actually finished.

So, yeah, things are going over someone's head, certainly, but apparently that someone is you.